# Logic and Paradox
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [September 10, 2002, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758 "2002-09-10T02:46:56Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/1 "2002-09-10T02:46:56Z")
This logically goes into the IMHO forum, yet paradoxically it is about books, so it could also go in this forum…
What are some good books that explain (in an easy/interesting manner) logic? A book filled with good examples would be ideal.
What are some good books that deal with paradoxes (paradoxi?paradoxies?)? I am looking for a book with classical paradoxs and maybe some modern ones. I am not looking for “business, environmental, non-philosophy” paradox books.
---
### Author:  [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/2 "2002-09-10T04:13:17Z")
Godel, Escher, Bach seems to be a good read so far. I’m not extremely far into it but my take on it is that it’s exactly what you’re looking for. So far I’ve read about Zeno’s paradox, stories within stories converging upon infinite series, and various logic problems dealing with both math and philosophy.
---
### Author:  [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/3 "2002-09-10T04:17:25Z")
Beat me to it, **Enderw24** 🙂
---
### Author:  [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/4 "2002-09-10T04:21:17Z")
Athough, for elementary principles of logic, G-E-B is a hard read. I’ll have to try and think of something additional that’s easy/interesting and isn’t super technichal.
---
### Author:  [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/5 "2002-09-10T04:39:37Z")
_Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes_ by Bryan Bunch.
_Labyrinths of Reason: Paradox, Puzzles, and the Frailty of Knowledge_ by William Poundstone.
_Forever Undecided: A Puzzle Guide to Godel_ by Raymond Smullyan (and a number of Smullyan’s other books)
A number of articles on paradoxes scattered throughout the collections of Martin Gardner’s Mathematical Games articles from _Scientific American_.
---
### Author:  [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/6 "2002-09-10T04:41:19Z")
There’s a book entitled _Encyclopedia of Paradox_ or something like that that’s probably good.
---
### Author:  [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/7 "2002-09-10T04:51:36Z")
Do you mean _Vicious Circles and Infinity: an Anthology of Paradox_?
I haven’t read this one, but I like the title: _What is the name of this book?_, by R.M. Smullyan.
It isn’t strictly about logic and paradox, but it does present them in historical context (along with other topics): Bertrand Russell’s _Wisdom of the West_.
---
### Author:  [@Jabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jabba)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/8 "2002-09-10T11:17:02Z")
Since everyone else has recommended the standard “popular” books on logic I’ll suggest a couple of slightly more technical ones.
Wilfrid Hodges, _Logic_: yes it’s a textbook, with exercises and stuff, but it is a very easy one, an easier read than _G-E-B_ for most people, I’d say.
Patrick Suppes, _Introduction to Logic_: More technical and more difficult than Hodges, I’d say this is the best introductory textbook on the subject.
---
### Author:  [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/9 "2002-09-10T12:43:01Z")
**Jabba** has a good point. It may not be glamorous, but a solid logic textbook is the best place to start.
I can also vouch for Huxley’s _Introduction to Logic_ (no, not Aldous).
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/10 "2002-09-10T17:36:40Z")
Can’t add any to the existing list (other than to further the recommendation for _Gödel Escher Bach_), but I can tell you thatthe plural of “paradox” is “paradoces”.
---
### Author:  [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/11 "2002-09-10T18:14:46Z")
I _strongly_ recommend _against_ G-E-B. It is long winded, rambling and obtuse. A half decent science writer could have said the same thing in two chapters and made it much clearer. Hofstadter’s columns in Scientific American were also long and pointless. They canned him quickly. It’s one of those “the emperor has no clothes” kind of things.
Go with Smullyan and check the “what other people bought who bought Smullyan” lists at Amazon.
Um, **Chronos** , in English the plural is “paradoxes”. Perhaps you are referring to some other language?
---
### Author:  [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/12 "2002-09-10T20:29:39Z")
Latin.
---
### Author:  [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/13 "2002-09-10T21:33:11Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ftg \*
> **I _strongly_ recommend _against_ G-E-B. It is long winded, rambling and obtuse. A half decent science writer could have said the same thing in two chapters and made it much clearer. Hofstadter’s columns in Scientific American were also long and pointless. They canned him quickly. It’s one of those “the emperor has no clothes” kind of things.**
Each to their own, but I just wish to respectfully and strongly disagree. I think GEB is a terrific book and a wonderful achievement. It has much to recommend it, and amply rewards careful reading. Not to be too polemical, but I feel **ftg** ’s comment tells me more about **ftg** than it does about the book.
However, since **ftg** sees fit to pronounce on what is, and is not, fine writing, it is perhaps acceptable to point out a few things.
‘Long winded’ should be ‘long-winded’.
‘Half decent’ should likewise be hyphenated.
‘They’ in ‘They canned him quickly’ is ‘obtuse’ since it refers to no antecedent noun. The same is true of ‘It’ in ‘It’s one of those…’
Perhaps when **ftg** has studied a while, and learned how to write correctly, he or she will be better placed to bestow upon us the benefits of his or her judgement about Douglas Hofstadter’s work.
---
### Author:  [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)
#### Post date: [September 10, 2002, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/14 "2002-09-10T21:38:02Z")
Hofstadter’s book is good for explaining the central themes of mathematical logic and theoretical computer science, as well as tying them to other disciplines. I read it after studying both of those subjects, and enjoyed it thoroughly.
**ftg** seems to think that it’s not a good book because it doesn’t just present the facts. It was never intended to; there are other books that do that.
---
### Author:  [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2002, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/15 "2002-09-11T01:15:30Z")
Thanks for the information people. Before I posted this I was actually considering Amazoning the G-E-B book. Is there any books that deal with scientific paradoxes? Or maybe problems with the modern understanding of science?
I figure whilest I’m amazon’n it I might as well stock up…
---
### Author:  [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2002, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/16 "2002-09-11T03:28:24Z")
Meatros writes:
\> Is there any books that deal with scientific paradoxes? Or
\> maybe problems with the modern understanding of science?
Could you explain a little what you mean by these topics? It’s not clear what you want here.
---
### Author:  [@ndorward](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ndorward)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2002, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/17 "2002-09-11T07:41:57Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ianzin \*
> \*\*
> However, since **ftg** sees fit to pronounce on what is, and is not, fine writing, it is perhaps acceptable to point out a few things.
>
> ‘Long winded’ should be ‘long-winded’.
>
> ‘Half decent’ should likewise be hyphenated.
>
> ‘They’ in ‘They canned him quickly’ is ‘obtuse’ since it refers to no antecedent noun. The same is true of ‘It’ in ‘It’s one of those…’
>
> Perhaps when **ftg** has studied a while, and learned how to write correctly, he or she will be better placed to bestow upon us the benefits of his or her judgement about Douglas Hofstadter’s work. \*\*
How do you spell “petty”?.. & the last two points are wrong to boot.
For what it’s worth: the Hodges book is fine–I used it once in a course–but what I’ve always found most useful & entertaining are the Smullyan books, which work through basic matters of logic, truth tables, paradoxes, logic games & puzzles, &c, all the way up to matters like Gödel’s theorem & the Turing stopping problem. (I’m also fond of his books of retrograde chess problems (which are another form of logic problem: from a current position on the board, deduce what happened earlier in the game), which are cast in the form of parodies of the Holmes stories & the _Thousand and One Nights_. Worth checking out, if this is your speed. It’s one of the few things I can do in chess without actually being a good chess player.)
---
### Author:  [@Jabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jabba)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2002, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/18 "2002-09-11T10:39:50Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Ultrafilter_
> Latin
But ‘paradox’ comes from the Greek [symbol]para[/symbol] + [symbol]doxa[/symbol], ‘beyond expectation’.
---
### Author:  [@partly\_warmer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/partly_warmer)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2002, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/19 "2002-09-11T11:33:50Z")
G-E-B is too much of a summary of other’s theories. Rambling, unoriginal, uninsightful.
“Introduction to Logic” Irving M. Copi is amusing and profesional, but logic is one of those subjects you’re better off taking a class on. The subject can have rather delicate nuances. And you’ll find other student’s opinions will considerably startle you.
I recommend against starting with a book specifically about paradox. To understand why a logical statement is invalid/false/improperly formed, it’s necessary to understand what’s meant by sound logic. This lack of undertanding of the basics is responsible for perpetuating grammar school arguments such as “If God can do anything, can he move an immovable objects?” Start with basic formal logic, there are plenty of interesting things to chew on…
As for a book about the modern problems of science, which does have numerous sections about fallacies in reasoning, Morris Kline’s “Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty” is well-written, scholarly, easy to read (at least the first half), and a real page-turning eye-opener. If you can’t find a logic class, that would be a great book to start with.
---
### Author:  [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2002, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758/20 "2002-09-11T14:02:17Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jabba \*
> \*\*But ‘paradox’ comes from the Greek [symbol]para[/symbol] + [symbol]doxa[/symbol], ‘beyond expectation’. \*\*
Then I was in error, and **Chronos** may be wrong as well. I don’t remember how to make Greek plurals.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logic-and-paradox/127758.md?page=2)